DCT

2:25-cv-00817

Rich Media Club LLC v. Comcast Corp

Key Events

Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rich Media Club LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: NBCUniversal Media, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Global IP Law Group, LLC
Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00817, E.D. Tex., 11/19/2025
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant NBCUniversal Media has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business at specified addresses in Plano, Waskom, and Longview, Texas.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s websites infringe five patents related to online advertising technology, including methods for determining ad viewability, conditionally loading ads ("lazy loading"), and replacing existing ads ("ad refresh").
Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of verifying whether online advertisements are actually visible to a user within their browser's viewport, a critical metric for the digital advertising industry.
Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that patents in the asserted family have overcome patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during prosecution and in a separate district court action involving a related patent. Additionally, a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,741,482 was denied institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant's parent company with pre-suit notice of infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-12-24	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2017-11-21	U.S. Patent No. 9,824,074 Issues
2018-12-18	PTAB reverses § 101 rejection in related application (Ex Parte Krassner)
2021-05-11	U.S. Patent No. 11,004,090 Issues
2022-10-11	U.S. Patent No. 11,468,453 Issues
2023-08-22	Plaintiff sends notice of infringement letter to Defendant's parent company
2023-08-29	U.S. Patent No. 11,741,482 Issues
2023-10-06	Defendant's parent company acknowledges receipt of notice materials
2024-05-17	IPR Petition filed against the ’482 Patent (IPR2024-00937)
2024-10-17	PTAB denies institution of IPR against the ’482 Patent
2024-10-22	U.S. Patent No. 12,125,051 Issues
2025-11-19	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,824,074 - "Content Rendering and Control System for a Pre-Defined Area of a Content Page"

Issued November 21, 2017

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: In online media, unlike print or broadcast, an advertisement may be placed on a webpage but never actually become visible to a user if it is located in a section that the user does not scroll to. This creates a fundamental challenge for advertisers who do not want to pay for unseen ads and for publishers who need to verify ad viewability. (Compl. ¶¶14-18; ’074 Patent, col. 1:49-67).
The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for controlling the rendering of content by determining the spatial relationship between a "pre-defined area" on a content page (e.g., an ad placeholder) and the "viewer's browser window dimensions and scrolling position" (i.e., the viewport). Content is rendered only when the predefined area enters the viewport or comes within a predefined distance of it. This is illustrated in Figure 51 of the patent, which shows how a larger "Content page" (21) is only partially visible within the "Browser window" (41). (’074 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:1-19).
Technical Importance: This technology provided a technical solution to the problem of ad viewability, which the complaint alleges was a foundational step for the online advertising industry to move from a "served impression" model to a more accountable "viewable impression" standard. (Compl. ¶¶18-19, 54-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 16. (Compl. ¶93).
The essential elements of method claim 16 include:
- determining, by code, whether a pre-defined area on a content page is at least partially within the visible area of an application window by comparing their respective coordinates;
- determining, by code, whether the pre-defined area is completely outside the visible area but within a certain distance of it, also by comparing coordinates;
- transmitting an indication based on these determinations; and
- in response to either determination, providing instructions to retrieve and render content files in the pre-defined area.

U.S. Patent No. 11,004,090 - "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks"

Issued May 11, 2021

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Beyond simply knowing if an ad is viewable, there is a need for more dynamic advertising systems that can efficiently manage ad inventory. This includes loading ads just-in-time to conserve resources ("lazy loading") and replacing ads that have been on-screen for a period of time to maximize revenue ("ad refresh"). (Compl. ¶¶19, 67-68).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method that combines two functionalities. First, it determines if a predefined ad area is near but outside the user's viewport, and if so, serves a first ad ("lazy loading"). Second, it periodically monitors if that ad area has been "in view" for a "predefined time," and in response, sends a communication to server systems to select and serve a "replacement advertisement" ("ad refresh"). This process is managed by code served with the webpage that communicates with remote servers. (’090 Patent, col. 7:59-col. 8:34; col. 9:1-12).
Technical Importance: This combination provides a more sophisticated approach to ad delivery, aiming to both improve user experience by not loading unnecessary ads and increase publisher revenue by refreshing ad slots that have achieved a certain duration of viewability. (Compl. ¶69).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 23. (Compl. ¶97).
The essential elements of method claim 23 include:
- designating a predetermined area on an ad content page;
- serving the page with associated code to a remote user's device;
- providing that the user's device determines if the area is near the visible browser window, and in response, serving a first ad content to be rendered in that area;
- the code then periodically determines if the area is in view and, after it has been in view for a predefined time, sends a communication to a server; and
- the server then receives the communication, selects a replacement ad, and serves it to be rendered in the predetermined area.

U.S. Patent No. 11,468,453 - "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,468,453, "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks," issued October 11, 2022. (Compl. ¶10).
Technology Synopsis: The technology claimed involves methods for both "lazy loading" (loading an ad when its placeholder is nearing the viewport) and "ad refresh" (replacing an ad after it has been in the viewport for a period of time). This allows for dynamic management of ad inventory on a webpage based on user scrolling behavior and view duration. (Compl. ¶¶86, 101).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 5 is asserted. (Compl. ¶101).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Accused Lazy Loading and Ad Refresh Websites" practice the claimed methods. The complaint states that detailed claim charts were provided to the defendant pre-suit but does not include them in the pleading. (Compl. ¶101).

U.S. Patent No. 11,741,482 - "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,741,482, "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks," issued August 29, 2023. (Compl. ¶11).
Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed at "ad refresh" technology. The invention involves a system that determines whether a sufficient percentage of an advertisement space is within a user's viewport, and upon such a determination, initiates a process to replace the existing ad with a new one. (Compl. ¶85).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶110).
Accused Features: The accused functionality resides in the "Accused Ad Refresh Websites," which allegedly incorporate this feature. The complaint references pre-suit claim charts that were not attached to the pleading. (Compl. ¶110).

U.S. Patent No. 12,125,051 - "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,125,051, "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks," issued October 22, 2024. (Compl. ¶12).
Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a computer program product for rendering advertisements. The program's instructions cause a computing device to determine if a predefined portion of an ad content display page is within the visible area of a browser window and, in response, to send a communication to "dispatcher servers" that then cause advertisement content to be served to the device. (Compl. ¶119).
Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶119).
Accused Features: The "Accused Ad Refresh Websites" are alleged to incorporate the claimed computer program for rendering ads on webpages. (Compl. ¶119).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are various websites owned and operated by Defendant NBCU, including at least "nbcnews.com" and "today.com". (Compl. ¶¶84-86). The complaint groups these into three categories based on the technology they allegedly use: "Accused Lazy Loading Websites," "Accused Ad Refresh Websites," and websites incorporating both features. (Compl. ¶¶84-86).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused websites incorporate specific advertising technologies. The "lazy loading" feature allegedly determines when an ad space is nearing a user's viewport and inserts an ad at that time. (Compl. ¶84). The "ad refresh" feature allegedly determines when an ad has been in the viewport for a sufficient time and initiates a process to replace it with a new ad, sometimes involving a real-time auction. (Compl. ¶¶68, 85). These websites are part of NBCU's large media portfolio and are linked to its network and cable TV shows. (Compl. ¶3). The complaint cites an AI-generated estimate that the "ad refresh" market may generate tens of billions of dollars annually. (Compl. ¶70). The complaint includes a diagram, Figure 51, illustrating the technical concept of a larger content page being only partially visible within a browser window's viewport. (Compl. ¶¶24-25, p.7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

9,824,074 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
determining, by code executed by a computing system, whether a pre-defined area on a content page... is at least partially within a visible area of an application window... by comparing coordinates of the pre-defined area with coordinates of the application window...	The Accused Lazy Loading Websites determine whether at least a portion of a pre-defined area (e.g., an ad placeholder) is within the viewport by comparing the coordinates of the pre-defined area with the web browser window coordinates.	¶93	col. 8:1-15
determining, by the code executed by the computing system, whether the pre-defined area... is completely outside of the visible area... and is also within a distance outside... by comparing the coordinates of the pre-defined area with the coordinates of the application window;	The Accused Lazy Loading Websites determine whether the pre-defined area is completely outside the viewport but sufficiently close by comparing the coordinates of the pre-defined area with the web browser window.	¶93	col. 7:42-52
transmitting, by the code executed by the computing system, one or more indications selected from the group consisting of: an indication that the pre-defined area is at least partially within the visible area... an indication that the pre-defined area is within the distance outside of the visible area...	After determining the area is at least partially within or close to the viewport, the Accused Lazy Loading Websites transmit code identifying those areas.	¶93	col. 8:16-29
in response to determining that the pre-defined area... is at least partially within the visible area... provide instructions to: retrieve one or more content files; and render the one or more content files in the pre-defined area...	The complaint's claim chart combines this element with the next; it alleges that based on determining the pre-defined area is at least partially within the viewport or close to it, servers provide instructions to retrieve and render content.	¶93	col. 8:45-56
in response to determining that the pre-defined area... is completely outside of the visible area... and is also within the pre-defined distance outside... provide instructions to: retrieve the one or more content files; and render the one or more content files in the pre-defined area...	Based on determining the pre-defined area is completely outside the viewport but close to it, servers running the Accused Lazy Loading Websites provide instructions to retrieve and render content.	¶93	col. 8:57-67

11,004,090 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
designating, by one or more computing systems, a first predetermined area on an ad content page;	The Accused Lazy Loading and Ad Refresh Websites determine a predetermined "placeholder" area for displaying advertisements.	¶97	col. 7:16-27
providing that, in response to a request, the ad content page with a designation of the predefined area and associated instructions in the form of code are served to a remote computing device operating a browser...	The Accused Websites respond to user requests by sending the webpage and associated code to the user's computer and browser.	¶97	col. 8:1-14
providing that the remote computing device determines whether the predefined area is within a predefined distance outside a visible area of the browser window and that in at least partial response to such determination a first ad content is served... and rendered in the first predetermined area;	Code on the user's computer determines that the ad area is outside but close to the viewport, and in response, an ad is served and rendered in the placeholder area ("lazy loading").	¶97	col. 7:35-42
wherein the instructions are configured, in conjunction with the browser to direct the computing device to: periodically determine whether the first predetermined area is in view... and in response to determining that the first predetermined area has been in view... for a predefined time, send a communication to one or more server computing systems;	The Accused Websites monitor how long the ad placeholder has been in the viewport, and after a threshold time has passed, send a request to a server.	¶97	col. 8:35-51
providing that the one or more server computing systems are configured to: receive the communication... select a replacement advertisement... serve the replacement advertisement... cause that the replacement advertisement is rendered in the first predetermined area.	The servers receive the communication, and a replacement ad is then served to the user's computer and rendered in the ad placeholder area.	¶97	col. 9:1-12

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether the industry term "lazy loading" as implemented by the accused websites corresponds to the specific method of "comparing the coordinates of the pre-defined area with the coordinates of the application window" as required by claim 16 of the ’074 Patent.
Technical Questions: A key point of contention may be the evidence required to show that the accused "ad refresh" functionality is triggered specifically after an ad has been in view for "a predefined time," as required by claim 23 of the ’090 Patent, versus being triggered by other events or a different set of conditions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "pre-defined area" (’074 Patent, cl. 16; ’090 Patent, cl. 23)

Context and Importance: This term identifies the portion of the webpage that is monitored for its position relative to the viewport. Its construction is critical because it defines the scope of what can act as a trigger for the claimed methods; a narrow definition might limit the claim to designated ad slots, while a broader one could cover other content sections.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the ’090 Patent describes the "pre-defined area" as "the area of the ad content display page where the content is to be rendered." (’090 Patent, col. 7:16-19). This functional language may support a construction that is not limited to a specific type of placeholder.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 16 of the ’074 Patent explicitly states the "pre-defined area comprising a placeholder location on the content page in which content is to be rendered." This language suggests the area must be, or at least contain, a specific placeholder.

The Term: "comparing coordinates" (’074 Patent, cl. 16)

Context and Importance: This term recites the specific mechanism by which the system determines the relative positions of the pre-defined area and the browser window. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products might use modern browser APIs (e.g., Intersection Observer) that achieve a similar outcome without performing a literal, step-by-step comparison of numerical coordinate values as might be described in the patent, potentially creating a non-infringement argument.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent may describe the comparison in functional terms, suggesting that any method achieving the outcome of determining spatial overlap would suffice.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification for the family of patents describes a "correlator code" that "periodically checks viewer browser screen coordinate data from the viewer's browser application with ad content display page coordinates." (’090 Patent, col. 8:35-43). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a direct comparison of coordinate data points.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint's formal counts focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by Defendant NBCU. (Compl. ¶¶93, 97, 101, 110, 119).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’453 and ’482 Patents. (Compl. ¶¶107, 116). The basis for this allegation is pre-suit knowledge stemming from a notice of infringement letter sent to Defendant's parent company, Comcast, on August 22, 2023, which the complaint alleges was acknowledged. The willfulness claim is further based on allegations that Defendant refused to engage in licensing negotiations. (Compl. ¶¶87-90, 106, 115).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence will be required to prove that NBCU's websites perform the specific methods of "comparing coordinates" and waiting for a "predefined time" as recited in the claims, versus using functionally similar but structurally different techniques common in modern web development for triggering viewability-based events?
A key legal issue will likely remain patent eligibility: despite a favorable history for the patent owner, the court will have to determine whether the asserted claims—which combine determining an object's position on a screen with network communications—are directed to a patent-eligible technological improvement or an abstract business practice (conditional ad placement) implemented with generic computer components.
The case may also present a significant question of damages scope and nexus: should the patents be found valid and infringed, a core dispute will likely involve the extent to which the patented features of "lazy loading" and "ad refresh" demonstrably drive advertising revenue on the accused websites, particularly in light of the complaint's multi-billion dollar market valuation for the technology.